MADAM,
I am absolutely of your Authors opinion, when he sayes,[1] That all bodies of this Universe are of one and the same matter, really divided into many parts, and that these parts are diversly moved: But that these motions should be circular more then of any other sort, I cannot believe, although he thinks that this is the most probable way, to find out the causes of natural effects: for nature is not bound to one sort of motions more then to another, and it is but in vain to indeavour to know how, and by what motions God did make the World, since Creation is an action of God, and Gods actions are incomprehensible; Wherefore his æthereal Whirlpools, and little particles of matter, which he reduceth to three sorts and calls them the three elements of the Universe, their circular motions, several figures, shavings, and many the like, which you may better read, then I rehearse to you, are to my thinking, rather Fancies, then rational or probable conceptions; for how can we imagine that the Universe was set a moving as a Top by a Whip, or a Wheele by the hand of a Spinster, and that the vacuities were fill'd up with shavings? for these violent motions would rather have disturbed and disordered Nature; and though Nature uses variety in her motions or actions, yet these are not extravagant, nor by force or violence, but orderly, temperate, free, and easie, which causes me to believe, the Earth turns about rather then the Sun; and though corporeal motions for variety make Whirl-winds, yet Whirl-winds are not constant, Neither can I believe that the swiftness of motion could make the matter more subtil and pure then it was by nature, for it is the purity and subtilty of the matter, that causes motion, and makes it swifter or slower, and not motion the subtilty and purity of matter; motion being onely the action of matter; and the self-moving part of matter is the working part of nature, which is wise, and knows how to move and form every creature without instruction; and this self-motion is as much her own as the other parts of her body, matter and figure, and is one and the same with her self, as a corporeal, living, knowing, and inseparable being, and a part of her self. As for the several parts of matter, I do believe, that they are not all of one and the same bigness, nor of one and the same figure, neither do I hold their figures to be unalterable; for if all parts in nature be corporeal, they are dividable, composable, and intermixable, and then they cannot be always of one and the same sort of figure; besides nature would not have so much work if there were no change of figures: and since her onely action is change of motion, change of motion must needs make change of figures: and thus natural parts of matter may change from lines to points, and from points to lines, from squares to circles, and so forth, infinite ways, according to the change of motions; but though they change their figures, yet they cannot change their matter; for matter as it has been, so it remaines constantly in each degree, as the Rational, Sensitive and Inanimate, none becomes purer, none grosser then ever it was, notwithstanding the infinite changes of motions, which their figures undergo; for Motion changes onely the figure, not the matter it self, which continues still the same in its nature, and cannot be altered without a confusion or destruction of Nature. And this is the constant opinion of,
Madam,
Your faithful Friend
and humble Servant.
[1] Philos. part. 3. a. 40.
[XXXIV.]
MADAM,
That Rarefaction is onely a change of figure, according to your Authors opinion,[1] is in my reason very probable; but when he sayes, that in rarified bodies are little intervals or pores filled up with some other subtil matter, if he means that all rarified bodies are porous, I dissent from him; for it is not necessary that all rarified bodies should be porous, and all hard bodies without pores: but if there were a probability of pores, I am of opinion, it would be more in dense and hard, than in rare and soft bodies; as for example, rarifying and dilating motions are plaining, smoothing, spreading and making all parts even, which could not well be, if there were holes or pores; Earth is dense and hard, and yet is porous, and flame is rare and dilating, and yet is not porous; and certainly Water is not so porous as Earth. Wherefore pores, in my opinion, are according to the nature or form of the figure, and not according to the rarity or thinness, and density or thickness of the substance. As for his thin and subtil matter filling up the pores of porous bodies, I assent to your Author so far, that I meane, thin and thick, or rare and dense substances are joyned and mixed together. As for plaining, smoothing and spreading, I do not mean so much artificial plaining and spreading; as for example, when a piece of gold is beaten into a thin plate, and a board is made plain and smooth by a Joyners tool, or a napkin folded up is spread plain and even, although, when you observe these arts, you may judge somewhat of the nature of natural dilations; for a folded cloth is fuller of creases then when plain, and the beating of a thin plate is like to the motion of dilation, which is to spread out, and the forme of rarifying is thinning and extending. I add onely this, that I am not of your Authors opinion, that Rest is the Cause or Glue which keeps the parts of dense or hard bodies together, but it is retentive motions. And so I conclude, resting,